Unless these immigrants living abroad are still holding on their passports of the country of their birth origins, they should not be counted as diaspora. Many of the Chinese and Indian ethnicities shown on the chart are locally born of third or fourth generation descents, and more importantly they may have no real connections with China or India perhaps only some emotional sentiments. The reason that they are continually viewed as immigrant diaspora is a notion perpetuated by old colonials in their divide and rule policy.

In my experience second-generation Chinese- and Indian-Americans assimilate very quickly. I think people here are conflating two different groups of people - IMMIGRANTS from those Asian countries and native-born Americans who are of Indian/Chinese descent.

I quote The Economist here "if migrants were a nation, they would be the world’s fifth-largest" - well the whole world is made of migrants at some point of time or the other, right? This data looks to be drawing a line in time and considering migration after that time only as migration! I understand the relevance of this article today, but I feel there's an even more important parameter to visualize here - one of the history of human migration in history and trends in such migration, the changing reasons for migration (if they were changing i.e.), the aftermath of migration on migrants and host-people etc.

I'd really love to see The Economist's research & opinion on such things related to migration.

It is very fascinating that both countries have the same migration trends. It is a very business oriented location. This says allot about the success of their cultures and how when they do leave their home counties, they are leaving for places that have money for the making. For me personally the only thing that surprises me is the population of people in Peru. I would have expected there to be one in Brazil but I guess Peru has its own economic success.

Another interesting view would be to show the "migration" of Africans across the globe, from the last 1000 years. The numbers, in terms of absolutes, would be less compelling than Indians or Chinese because of population size. But if they showed the numbers as a % of African population, I think it would be a sight to see. Does it not behoove us to explore forced migration of peoples as well?

This is kind of old news. These diasporas have been unfolding since the 19th century.

I see the term "ethnic" is used, so assume that means people born in those countries but of some Indian or Chinese descent....would have helped to clarify.

CIA World Factbook has Asians comprising 4.43 % of the US population. The figures given above would represent about 1.8% of the US population (3.46+2.25 divided by 313m). Seems a little low.

Granted there are also large communities of Japanese, Koreans and Vietnamese in the US too. Still seems the Chinese community would be the largest.

THeSingapore figures suggest "some" longtime residents and descendents are included in this chart. Cia World Fact book has it at 4.7 million people, with Chinese supposedly are 76.8%. The above suggests a Chinese population comprising 59 percent of the population when divided by 4.7 million. What gives? Can't imagine 59 percent of the population represents recent arrivals and first gen; especially since Singapore was characterized as a Chinese city outside of China for decades now. Maybe dated numbers are being used?

The point about social software helping communities is interesting but also a bit old - Lots of people were using instant messenger services in the mid-1990s (I did, with friends in Japan and South America).

Including Hong Kong and Macau comes off as silly and a distraction.

While the chart is attractive, in the end, had to hold off hitting the recommend button.

I'm curious who gets counted as "Chinese" or "Indian" in this chart. In the US, if a Chinese immigrant marries a caucasian, are their children still considered part of the "Chinese diaspora"? Most Asian mixed race children I know look not even remotely Asian after 1 mixed generation. My niece who is 1/4 Japanese has blonde hair blue eyes, you would never know she's 1/4 Japanese, or that his dad is 1/2 Japanese, neither even look it. And if a Singaporean of Chinese descent moves to the US or Canada, is he/she considered Singaporean or Chinese?

In Southeast Asia, the Chinese have lived there for generations, in Vietnam, Myanmar, Thailand, Indonesia, Phillipines, they don't even have Chinese names and most of the time you can't even tell them apart from the natives, why are they still counted as Chinese? At least in Malaysia they retain their Chinese names and heritage but that's only because the natives are muslims so they don't mix.

In the US and Canada, the Indian disapora tend to retain their cultural heritage much more so than the Chinese, who tend to intermarry and "disappear" after a generation or two. But I know of Indians who were born and raised in the US who still let their parents arrange for marriages with someone back in India. I'm guessing it's because of the religion. Is there a rule in Hinduism that says you must be born a Hindu, you can't convert into the religion? Do Indians in England intermarry with whites? What about the Chinese in France or Russia, is the intermarriage rate high?

I don't know about France, but the intermarriage rate in Russia is around 2%. The amount of people who would personally accept marrying a Russian is 17%, though 43% view intermarriage as OK. Most Chinese in Russia are middle aged men who attended college. The attitude of Chinese towards Russians is different depending on who they are and where they go. People from the border regions of China who go to the border regions of Russia for trade usually just view Russia as a place to make money, and the majority plan to permanently live in China. Those who go to Moscow are much more interested in becoming a permanent diaspora.

"A surprising 35% considered their material situation in China to be "good" or "very good"; 36% evaluated it as "medium", and 29% believed it to be "bad" or "very bad"."

In addition, if you'd notice, the vast proportion of the Chinese diaspora live in countries poorer than or almost equal to China. Only a tiny portion (12% of the Chinese diaspora) lives in high income countries.

I think most tabulations of Chinese in nations around the world are based on ethnicity, so most would be classified as "ethnic Chinese", even though they may hold various citizenships. So if a Singaporean (who happens to be ethnic Chinese) immigrates to the US, he/she would be an immigrant from Singapore, i.e. a Singaporean but an ethnic Chinese in the US. Most of the counts of ethnic Chinese in the US/Canada would be close to "full" ancestry so I would think partial ancestry would actually push that number even higher.

Also, Thailand is interesting because it has one of the largest ethnic Chinese populations outside China. I think the classification is somewhat less clear but those considered are probably "self-identified" so they can trace ancestors back to China and know that what family line they descend from.

i have had similar experience with the french, who at times have angrily insisted that i am indian, not american who, according to the french, are supposed to be white or black [african] only.

makes me wonder if the - "we are so much more liberal, evolved & better than boorish americans" - french will ever accept the 2nd & 3rd generation north african extraction population as french or even as equals.
and then they wonder why children of immigrants don't assimilate into french society like they do in america & canada.

I don't think Americans like intermarrying with Indians very much. They do tend to like Asians, especially Japanese and Koreans and to an somewhat lesser extent Chinese and Phillipinos. Indians are considered a responsible and safe group though, so are relatively welcome in the country. Somalians and Hmongs are not very welcome due to their bad reputations (true or untrue).

My experience with Indians in the US is that they can't drop the caste system, even in the pluralistic USA. I had a co-worker (Brahmin) who couldn't figure out how to get her shoes repaired or her hair cut in the US. Her high caste meant she could not even speak to the shoemaker or hairdresser. She needed an Indian of intermediate caste to act as the mediator, and of course none was available in Iowa. She was completely unable to leave the caste system behind, despite the fact that the shoemaker and hairdresser were of European descent.
Such silliness is not an asset to any country. I would hate to see the caste system take root in the US.

And there is no race problem in the US? The caste system, however bad, never matched slavery (where husbands were separated from wives, children auctioned off in front of their parents). Remember how the first Chinese came to the US - as indentured labor to work on railroads? Or how African Americans couldn't vote till the 1960s?

There is nothing wrong in being bi-cultural. Surely the French in Canada and the hispanics in the US hold on to their culture too? As for Indians having arranged mariiages, that goes across religions (India has eight official religions - Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, Parsis and Jews. And almost all of them have arranged marriages).

The intermarriage rates between African Americans and Caucasians in the US was around 1 percent a few years ago, compared to about 50 percent in the UK (data from an economist article around 10 years ago).

Of course there's a race problem in the US. Did I imply otherwise? The difference is that great progress has been made in the last 50 years, and racism - especially among gen X - is considered politically incorrect. In contrast, the caste system rationalizes and in fact requires poor treatment for the lower castes.

We don't need to import another system of social injustice, no matter how colorful its mythology.

"The intermarriage rates between African Americans and Caucasians in the US was around 1 percent a few years ago, compared to about 50 percent in the UK (data from an economist article around 10 years ago)."

This seems to prove that African Americans who move to the UK are more open than those who stay in the US.

Just wanted to clarify that there is no rule saying you have to be born a Hindu. There are a lot of people who convert to Hinduism for a multitude of reasons. As for marriage, I agree that a lot of Indians marry whomever his/her parents choose (in almost any country, not just the US), but there are also people who marry "outside" of the Indian population.
As an Indian who grew up in the US, I can say that I will most likely have an "arranged marriage" handled by my parents, but it will definitely not be with someone living in India. Just too many differences in way of life, how we might think, etc.

in case, this point is misunderstood, I would also like to add that there is no way to "really" leave Hinduism as well as to "really" convert into it ... as Hinduism uniquely among all religions has no scriptural rules for anything. so no concept/rules for conversion, no concept of blasphemy, no concept of "satan", and no concept of apostasy either ... and not much theism at any rate.

Desigirl is right that some do "convert" to Hinduism ... but that conversion usually just means a private resolution to do prayers the Hindu way (meaning whatever her/his Hindu friends happen to do at that time) or not at all, along with some appreciation of Hindu/Indian mythology ... Hinduism doesn't really prescribe any prayer code.

Well some one actually really converts to Hinduism.. I have only seen multitudes of people in the west convert to Islam. Desi girl, people might become hindus...but not Hindus. Its only the cultural and society bondage that keeps people Hindus. The rest who get away from society often become Atheists coz many cant understand the complicated structure of the religion. No hard feelings, but u make no sense.

The Chinese and Indians are the fast growing populations and economies in the world. It is likely that their main cities are getting over populated and they are migrating else where. A near place for them to migrate would be in the southeast part of the world near Thailand and Cambodia. A farther place to migrate is the United States where they hold their arms open for new immigrants. It is also the land of opportunity and many foreigners go there to receive an education.

While India is still experiencing vigorous population growth, China's has actually slowed quite a bit.

According to the CIA World Fact Book, its growth is .49% and ranks 151st. Granted that is against a heck of a population base, but supposedly the population will begin declining like Japan's in a decade or two.

Although this graph's data may be accurate, the way it is represented is misleading. Anyone who has taking a probability and statistics class can easily see how this graph is misleading to its viewers. Representing the populations with circles according to size is a terrible way to show this. The best thing to do would be solely use the numbers or actually use a bar graph. The large red circles intertwine with the next and can cause confusion to many people.

It is a common sense that Taiwan,HongKong,Macau are parts of China,just as London is a city of UK.The residents in Taiwan,HongKong,Macau are immigrants.

Few people will look on Korean with Chinese nationality as foreign
immigrants who generally been looked on as the people from other province or northerners.Now many Chinese immigrants in Korean actually are Chinese-Korean.

UK should be the largest source of immigrants.Certainly,more American come from Germany than UK although they can not speak German.

To count people of Indian descent in the Carribean, South Africa, Mauritius, south Pacific and Malaysia among Indian diaspora is akin to counting African-Americans as west-African diaspora.
These were forced migrations. And it is unlikely that most of them have any family contacts back in their "homeland".